直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

At the PTAB Blog

By Failing to Prepare, You Are Preparing to Fail: Incorporate Planned Demonstratives Before The Oral Hearing

August 04, 2014

Authored and Edited by Adriana L. Burgy

People learn best in different ways. Auditory learners would rather listen to things being explained. Visual learners absorb material best by looking at graphics, watching a demonstration, or reading. Kinesthetic learners prefer processing information through hands-on experiences. Most people are primarily visual learners. But regardless of how any given judge or juror prefers to learn, demonstrative exhibits at trial can serve as powerful tools for persuading all types of learners.

Compared to district court patent litigations, post-grant proceedings are quick. Here one year and gone the next. And those proceedings before the Board are conducted on paper, culminating in a final oral hearing where each side gets just one hour (including rebuttal time) to sway the APJs on their technically dense and legally complex patent issues.

Given the speedy schedule and short oral hearing, planning ahead for the hearing can be tough. But the Board recently reminded parties of the benefits of doing just that. By the time the proceeding reaches final oral hearing, nothing new can be presented—no new evidence, no new arguments. Specifically, parties who fail to plan their demonstrative exhibits early risk having them excluded. To avoid this danger, incorporate demonstratives in the petition, response, opposition, motions, replies, declarations, cross-examination observations, or other exhibits in advance of the hearing.

In Spectra Logic, the Board excluded 24 slides challenged for presenting figures that were not identical to the those in the trial history, and excluded (apparently sua sponte) an additional slide (#51) as well. Only two challenged slides survived, the Board agreeing that they contained arguments made in the brief, even if restated in a slightly different fashion.

Spectra Logic Corp. v. Overland Storage, Inc., IPR2013-00357, Paper 24 (PTAB July 22, 2014) (citing Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012)).

Contacts

Adriana L. Burgy
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4345
Email

Copyright © 2014 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. Additional disclaimer information. 

Related Insights

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Conference

2026 China Pharmaceutical Innovation Conference

July 22-24, 2026

Shanghai

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: May 2026

June 30, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Deadline Evolution: Director Extends Deadline for Requesting Director Review of Institution Grants to 30 Days

June 30, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP